Nostr notes by TheKayman

The fact that you have to ask if there is any illegal data on ...

2025-10-16T21:40:13Z

In reply to nevent1q…5f56
_________________________

The fact that you have to ask if there is any illegal data on chain says that even if there is it’s not obvious and not natively supported by the network. Any illegal data mined in the op_return part of the transaction will be known about because:
1. It is a full contiguous string of data that can potentially be dragged and dropped into video playing software without any complex reformation of data
2. The reason op_return was created in the first place was for a way to include a very small amount of arbitrary data in a transaction, meaning arbitrary data is op_returns purpose. Therefore increasing the default op_return limit 1250x signals that bitcoin now supports and facilitates the relaying and storage of arbitrary data which must include illegal data as well.

As soon as illegal data was mined in bsv using op_return it was known about…

That’s true, but there’s a difference between people using an ...

2025-09-29T07:41:20Z

In reply to nevent1q…93tj
_________________________

That’s true, but there’s a difference between people using an exploit that is not natively supported vs using op_return which is a feature with the purpose to allow arbitrary data.
By increasing the op_return limit you are now signalling that relaying large blobs of continuous data is a feature supported by the network. In contrast, shoving split up chunks of data into the witness section where it is not designed to be is not an intended use of the network.
The argument is that: now relaying large continuous chunks of data is natively supported, any legal/regulatory plausible deniability is gone.
From a technical standpoint this change also makes it easier for bad actors / criminals as they don’t have to split their files into multiple chunks.

The fees are the filter argument does not address the mempool ...

2025-09-29T00:43:56Z

In reply to nevent1q…9tvh
_________________________

The fees are the filter argument does not address the mempool issue that this change to op_return brings.
Because core 30 nodes will accept and relay 100kb files by default, this allows for files to be sent across the p2p network without having to get this transaction mined.
Criminals / bad actors can exploit this by relaying illegal data to their buddy on the other side of the world, anonymously and for free because this is all happening at the mempool level.
Yes, eventually after a period of time of this transaction not being mined it will be dropped from the node’s mempool, but by this point that illegal file has already been relayed to other bad actors.
In short: the removal of op_return filters in core 30 software creates infrastructure for an extremely effective, anonymous and free data relay / sharing service that will be exploited by criminals with illegal files.

This is not me being a purist saying “this is immoral”. This is me saying “this introduces a legitimate attack vector that governments and the powers at be who want to see bitcoin fail WILL use”.

It’s completely different because Core (the reference ...

2025-09-07T22:33:13Z

In reply to nevent1q…t7pp
_________________________

It’s completely different because Core (the reference implementation) initiated this and so likening the push back from people against spam to the big blockers, who were trying to push something new (larger blocks) doesn’t make sense.