Old methods of storing evil stuff required obfuscation: they would need to break it up into multiple chunks and reassembly would require specific software and knowledge of what the data is and how to reconstruct and interpret it exactly.
The old formats looked like this:
"Hi, I'm a Bitcoin transaction, here's my first output of 45 outputs - <filepart1>, here's my second output <filepart2>, here's my third output<filepart3>" along with a tonne of other stuff that has to get parsed out when processing the highly obfuscated material. This is thankfully also true of inscriptions.
OP_RETURN however is just a dump for raw, serialized data. It's not the same.
It says the equivalent of "Hi I'm a Bitcoin transaction, here's an unspendable output: <file> end".
This wasn't a problem for tiny OP_RETURNs i.e their current limit of 80 bytes.
If they're permitted to be 100kb, that's where the abuse begins.
And that's the end of plausible deniability.
When the stuff gets processed - which it has to be for your node to verify that they are valid transactions - then you just have a raw, unadulterated file that will trigger primitive antivirus/forensics software to alert the user: "Hi, you have CP on your computer."
You now need a licence to run a Bitcoin node, everyone thinks you're disgusting if you do, and they're not even wrong.
Thread
Login to reply
Replies (44)
This is definitely a potential danger. How about OP_RETURN at 160 bytes plus lots of spam filters? Nice and small, efficient for the node, and requires an effective extra premium for larger sets of data by making them break it up. 83 bytes or 42 if you prefer.
I have my datacarrier cost set at a premium too.
thereβs not even a strong reason to send more than 80 bytes for a simple monetary transaction. why increase it at all? it should stay where it is
Sue them. Get a court to force Core to pause while the court hears your argument. Yeah, sorry, statism, but if it works, just do it.
Nope.
Not quite sure what that means, Grace.
Just means I don't think their system is the answer. It's good at using up people's time and money, but Bitcoin has never been about the power of the state.
Oh I totally agree. I'm just saying, use what's available. We don't really have the luxury of being nice, so to speak.
What court is it that you think has jurisdiction over a distributed open source software protocol?
Jurisdiction? The only court I recognize is the one where pixels testify and sats serve as evidence. My verdict: create first, ask questions later.
If such files are stored as contiguous binary data, they can indeed be found using forensic and data recovery tools.
They are contiguous data and they look exactly like a real file if you have no file table info to go off of.
Its good to see you on nostr
I mostly lurk. π§‘
Would it be fine if I can DM to order a seedsigner in the near future? I only use Nostr now and would love to support SeedSigner and have one of my own. π
ππ
They knot like us
Sly Fawkes
Dismissing something as FUD isn't an argument. Please explain how willfully storing and relaying CP is not possession with intent to distribute.
#theyknotlikeus
View quoted note →
Bitcoinβs value comes from being neutral and censorship-resistant. Abuse vectors exist, yes, but once we accept filtering, licensing, or βallowedβ use-cases, Bitcoin is dead. The solution isnβt to compromise the protocol, itβs to harden the culture of self-custody, verification, and personal responsibility.
Filters have been in bitcoin the whole time in the goal of it being intended as a monetary network. This is no different and comes with a ton of unintended consequences
Excellent point.
So, in this post, it seems like you're explicitly saying that you'd prefer fake public key hashes - with UTXO bloat - over OP_RETURN?
Good vid. Curious how many node runners will just end up running pruned nodes to drop all OP_RETURN data and not be liable on their conscience.
'Make it illegal to run a node'
Proof of printer protection
No the world needs proof of WORK
Not proof of paper & ink
Bitcoin fixes #Inflation #Deception
If youβre still running core at this point, I donβt even know what youβre doing with your life. And I donβt want to be friends.
View quoted note β
datacarriersize=0 solves it, no?
if it ends on in a block, then you download and verify the full block regardless of mempool policy. that doesnt mean we should do nothing though.
wouldn't there be an op return tag at the beginning and end of each 80 byte set?
since what core enabled is multiple op returns per tx.
Doesn't sound like its raw data uninterrupted.
A must watch.
View quoted note β
Excellent points as always.
π§‘ππ»π»
Which point was the most excellent in your opinion? I didn't catch any.
You excited for CP on your computer or something? Its nostr, you can be honest
Your filters won't protect you from that. The bad stuff will be stored in your RAM before it is filtered. Your safest option is to not run a node at all.
You trying to gate keep nodes so you can knowing and willingly broadcasting CP with your Core buddies? That is actually a great way to completely destroy BTC
I thought you were leaving Bitcoin because it has been captured?
Core β Bitcoin
Is that supposed to be witty funny reply @npub1je9a...urtv ? Maybe this would be considered smart where you come from on reddit ?
hey mechanic, just fyi you can already store 4kb files in control block sibling hashes in plain text without having to reconstruct them. plenty of malware is under 4kb in size, so you will have to stop relaying taproot transactions if you believe this is a real threat glhf
Already aware, as I said on twitter 4KB is less than 100KB.
so a 4kb file canβt trigger anti malware?
Of course it _can_ but the only examples offered wouldn't mess with cloud stuff run at the hypervisor level on behalf of the *provider* - rather disk scanning stuff purchased by the customer.
please elaborate
opreturn isnt going to kick off infrastructure content scanning.
