With the forthcoming lifting in Core v30 of the OP_RETURN knowledge restrict to 100KB one of many main considerations of opponents of the change has been the hazard of unlawful content material showing inside the OP_RETURN’s as contiguous knowledge as much as 100KB. This has been dismissed as fear-mongering by the Bitcoin Core neighborhood and there was quite a lot of name-calling and heightened emotion going backwards and forwards between the 2 camps. A specific concern cited by opponents has been the precedent of Bitcoin SV affected by unlawful content material on its blockchain instantly after making this similar change to OP_RETURN.
I wish to see the Bitcoin Core facet of the argument, presumably they do not need unlawful content material any greater than Knots folks do – however what assurance can they offer us in technical phrases why we’re protected from it?
I’ve seen some Bitcoin Core supporters say it doesn’t matter if such materials seems on the blockchain as a result of particular instruments can be wanted on the Bitcoin nodes to view such unlawful materials, and that it’s “simply inert hex”, eg. this submit :
https://x.com/dopemind10/standing/1967691600475373989
I’m not vastly reassured by this argument. I’m at the moment planning to arrange my very own Bitcoin node and I’d not be snug with such unlawful materials being current on any laptop inside my house even in obfuscated kind. I’ve no ensures how regulation enforcement would interpret such content material and I do not particularly wish to check them.
I’ve heard the argument that unlawful materials can already be put into the blockchain and we will not cease it, through Taproot or pretend pubkeys for instance, however the OP_RETURN methodology is way much less obfuscated than these strategies, being a contiguous 100KB block of knowledge. It’s a vital step nearer to internet hosting unlawful materials, and these days I can not think about anybody who would wish to take such a step. Even the slightest trace of affiliation with sure forms of unlawful materials, even with a totally false accusation, can suffice to break somebody’s fame and even place them at risk.
One factor that does give some reassurance is that main miners won’t ever mine a block containing unlawful materials in an OP_RETURN. However what is going to the situation be when a small unknown nameless miner who may very well be positioned anyplace on this planet is ready to mine a block and contains inside it unlawful materials in an OP_RETURN? This might occur each few months or so, a ‘mining lottery’ win. I’ve surmised that main miners will at all times be checking the block they’re constructing on, and if it comprises unhealthy materials then they’ll as an alternative mine on prime of the block under it. So by this logic if a lot of the main miners adopted that coverage the chance that the unhealthy block may get into the chain with the very best accumulative chainwork can be infinitesimally small. However are we assured nearly all of main miners will undertake such a coverage? As soon as just a few blocks are constructed on prime of a foul block it may very well be very tough to assemble another chain with larger chainwork.
Outwith the precise blockchain itself the opposite concern is with unlawful materials showing inside the mempool on particular person nodes. These not utilizing -datacarriersize choice to cut back the OP_RETURN knowledge cap on their node to a low stage, and never utilizing Knots, will probably have unlawful content material of their RAM. Once more I would not wish to be the one explaining to regulation enforcement how that materials bought there. And who is aware of what checks a contemporary laptop working system could be making and what it might report as telemetry knowledge, and the way AI elements inside that OS could interpret doubtful materials it detects inside the RAM. Once more it’s working dangers that you just actually don’t desire these days the place completely every little thing we do electronically is analyzed and tracked by more and more subtle methods and that regulation enforcement are more and more utilizing, for instance for ‘pre-crime’. What safeguards do now we have that beneath Core v30 nodes won’t be uncovered to this threat of their RAM?
To me a conservative coverage on unlawful materials inside Bitcoin makes most sense, I do not suppose a ‘que sera’ method goes to work nicely for Bitcoin. Nonetheless for individuals who disagree with that assertion please give your the reason why a extra ‘liberal’ or ‘laissez-faire’ method could also be ample and supply some supporting proof or case research if you happen to can. It is a time of nice change in society and I feel folks throughout the spectrum have to adapt to the brand new setting and we have to have a concrete dialogue on all of the issues which are of concern.
