simulx4 🟠 Dibalik.btc (Knots) - toxic bitcoin maximalist The nodes can defend the network by updating mempool filters

Been asked for my Legal take on Core v30/Spam/Filters a few times. So here it is. Counterintuitively, filters could INCREASE legal risk for nodes by decreasing plausible deniability IMO. The State says: “If you already censor CSAM voluntarily, surely you can censor XYZ

Every bitcoiner who wants BTC to remain the hardest money we ever had, should be in favor of a soft fork to undo the highly contested Core v30 "upgrade". I vote for a simple & non-controversial return to where we were before this mess: the 83 bytes default OP_RETURN relay policy.

Pledditor If widely adopted, uncapped OP_RETURN is extremely significant. It changes bitcoin from monetary protocol to permanent file storage protocol. In doing so, it obliterates our most effective premise in defense of awful “content” on chain: it’s fringe lunatics abusing a network

Vijay Selvam This is a very useful take on liability for transmitting illegal content, thanks. A vital aspect to consider, which I'm not sure is covered here, is liability for *storing* illegal content. This is unique for hash-tree-based blockchains because, unlike other forms of internet

Plebs, if you really think that BIP444 is not gaining enough traction then you should think twice. If BIP444 was nothing burger then this coretard phag**t wouldn't be trying so hard to dox Dathon Ohm. As BIP444 gets more traction, you will see more stupid posts like this

Vijay Selvam To be clear, this would *only* apply to filters that are actively looking for encoded content, with respect to legal implications of it (IP, CSAM). Most of the current discussion is about filters that relay anything which is respecting a format. You say "anything valid". Core

Nick Szabo Few thoughts: - Whether the illegal blob is hidden in a 300 KB witness envelope (pre-v30 inscriptions) or OP_RETURN (post-v30), the bytes still end up in exactly the same immutable chain and are just as undeletable. - IMO liability for illegal images would be accentuated only if

Vijay Selvam >No filtering = plausible deniability (“I relay anything valid, no discretion”). Mirrors ISPs/CDNs: neutral conduit, no editorial control = safe harbor (DMCA §512, CDA §230). Which is not how any node can actually work.

Giacomo Distributed-Authoritarian Plebslop Zucco Not sure I follow. It’s the “standardness” filters I’m talking about. Not consensus changes/BIP444 which is a whole other topic. What is “actively looking for encoded content”?

Mechanic #FixTheFilters #300kb Could you explain?

Vijay Selvam Nodes cannot relay unlimited amounts of consensus valid activity. It's literally impossible. There isn't a Proof-Of-Work component that imposes a sane limit to what can be produced the way there is with blocks. This is why they do stuff like reject transactions paying tiny fees,

Vijay Selvam What I'm saying is: - standardness filters operate just the same as validity ones, only at mempool level and not block level...if "I relay anything valid" is good plausible deniability, "I relay anything valid AND standard" also is, same principle, - just like validity,

Giacomo Distributed-Authoritarian Plebslop Zucco Thanks Giacomo Distributed-Authoritarian Plebslop Zucco. I agree with you. - the first part of my tweet is meant as a rebuttal of the Knots position that NOT filtering increases legal liability. The idea that “you have to filter CSAM or else the Feds will kick your door down” narrative is what I’m trying to

Vijay Selvam I think we are aligned, thanks.

Latest Knots 20251110 moving up...

I don't want spam on the bitcoin blockchain. I want bitcoin to be a monetary network only. I am therefore keeping an open mind towards BIP444 soft fork. However, I would like Luke Dashjr and Dathon Ohm to address the following risk and define how to mitigate these risks: 1.

Danish ₿itcoin Maxi 🇩🇰 Dathon Ohm 1. It's not breakage. It's fixing a bug. Data storage was never intended/defined behaviour. 2. This is a tradeoff and part of why it's temporary. 3. It's not safe for a softfork to activate faster anyway. 4. It's not a real risk. The hypothetical risk exists for any and all

😂😂😂

It's not about we trust Luke and Mechanic but about Bitcoin Core's current development is 100% not aligned with the Bitcoin ethos anymore