Search content
Sort by
Showing 1 of 1 result by Clearpilled
⭐ Merited by d5000 (1)
My main points against it would be:
1. Increasing the size of OP_RETURN allows CSAM to be stored in a non obfuscated way
2. Arbitrary data presents "unknown unknown" attack vectors, some are going to be immediately obvious, like malware, but we should expect bad actors to be more clever than even us.
3. If it causes the average block size to increase, it could strain nodes pointlessly.
The arguments I have seen FOR v30 is something like this:
1. We shouldn't censor data, Bitcoin is about freedom!
2. People can already store arbitrary data, this will just make it easier!
Both of these, I think, are lousy arguments. First, there are things we should censor, I know that 'censor' is a dirty word, but most people would agree we should censor CSAM, I don't think people's moral or legal responsibility to not store CSAM is absolved if it's done to run a Bitcoin node or not. The second argument, I think can also be used in reverse, if people really want to store arbitrary data, they will find a way, without an increase in OP_RETURN, it will be obfuscated enough that Bitcoin nodes won't have legal or moral obligations.
A higher level point I have is about what I would identify as the root cause of both of these arguments, a philosophy along the lines of "Why should we decide what data people want to store, as long as they are paying for the block space, it's no different"
To show why that's wrong, let's ask a question: Why have any scaffolding to the structure of Bitcoin at all? Why not let it be just a chain of hashes, freely interpretable in any way that's desired? Well, then it wouldn't exist. The reason Bitcoin exists that it is financial, because it is financial, you can engineer the incentives of it. It's called Bitcoin after all
I am willing to change my mind, and would appreciate anyone who disagrees representing the other side in more depth.
1. Increasing the size of OP_RETURN allows CSAM to be stored in a non obfuscated way
2. Arbitrary data presents "unknown unknown" attack vectors, some are going to be immediately obvious, like malware, but we should expect bad actors to be more clever than even us.
3. If it causes the average block size to increase, it could strain nodes pointlessly.
The arguments I have seen FOR v30 is something like this:
1. We shouldn't censor data, Bitcoin is about freedom!
2. People can already store arbitrary data, this will just make it easier!
Both of these, I think, are lousy arguments. First, there are things we should censor, I know that 'censor' is a dirty word, but most people would agree we should censor CSAM, I don't think people's moral or legal responsibility to not store CSAM is absolved if it's done to run a Bitcoin node or not. The second argument, I think can also be used in reverse, if people really want to store arbitrary data, they will find a way, without an increase in OP_RETURN, it will be obfuscated enough that Bitcoin nodes won't have legal or moral obligations.
A higher level point I have is about what I would identify as the root cause of both of these arguments, a philosophy along the lines of "Why should we decide what data people want to store, as long as they are paying for the block space, it's no different"
To show why that's wrong, let's ask a question: Why have any scaffolding to the structure of Bitcoin at all? Why not let it be just a chain of hashes, freely interpretable in any way that's desired? Well, then it wouldn't exist. The reason Bitcoin exists that it is financial, because it is financial, you can engineer the incentives of it. It's called Bitcoin after all
I am willing to change my mind, and would appreciate anyone who disagrees representing the other side in more depth.