Thread
1) We're not talking about encrypted data.
2) Bitcoin does not support images at all, so it is impossible to store CSAM. Stegonography is another matter entirely (though even in that regard, there's no evidence of CSAM).
3) Spam is not usage, and Bitcoin relies on its users to protect it. WE are Bitcoin's antifragility.
4) Obviously I'm going to recommend OCEAN. Not only am I biased, but it's also better for Bitcoin. But the point is to mitigate this, I'm willing to concede even the would-be-worst pools to mine on are better than F2Pool right now.
Replies (3)
I appreciate the dialogue.
On point 1: Fair, but the OP_RETURN expansion makes data more readily accessible in standard format, which is your concern. The legal risk difference between encrypted and accessible is what Szabo flagged.
On point 2: If Bitcoin can’t store images, what are ordinals/inscriptions doing? Taproot witness data allows arbitrary data that reassembles into images and files. The technical distinction doesn’t change the practical reality.
On point 3: If Bitcoin’s survival requires coordinated human filtering rather than protocol level incentives making attacks expensive, that’s a fundamentally different security model than what Bitcoin was designed for.
On point 4: The disagreement is whether filtering makes Bitcoin ‘better’ or fundamentally changes what Bitcoin is.
What’s the technical solution that doesn’t require ongoing human judgment about legitimate versus illegitimate data?
2) Ordinals/Inscriptions are just spam. It's basically a scamcoin using proof-of-attacking-Bitcoin as its "algorithm". Taproot witness data does not allow arbitrary data - that's just an abusive *mis*interpretation of script code that Ordinals is doing completely unrelated to Bitcoin. This _is_ a relevant distinction.
3) Satoshi introduced spam filters to deal with the spam issue. So Bitcoin literally _was_ designed to work this way.
4) Again, Bitcoin has used spam filters from the start. It is Core30 that aims to change Bitcoin by removing some.
