Damus
Luke Dashjr · 2w
It takes time to think through, implement, and review a more complicated long term change. In that time, anyone can just destroy Bitcoin irreversibly. RDTS protects Bitcoin while we do that longer...
Hide&Seek profile picture
What I don't understand is, if contiguous, illegal content is the major concern here, why not exclusively focus on capping OP_RETURN and going for the kill? Why mixing it with additional restrictions that are addressing a different, less pressing issue, and that will objectively cause the whole thing to fail, when you had a clear shot at getting the high priority issue fixed?

Also, we've been aware of this attack vector for so many years? Why is it suddenly an emergency now, when even the press has been talking about it for at least a decade & contiguous illegal content could have been posted on chain anytime by a well organized adversary?

Finally, why pretending it's just reversing what core v30 did, when you can't ignore this bip is doing much more than that?
2
nostrich · 2w
BIP 110 is doing so much good. Inscriptions are a hack. Why not fix it when we have the chance to do it? Given the compromised Core devs didn't do it. You can't understand it because obviously you are a bad actor, seeing you cite Citrea's BitVM spam tech. nostr:nevent1qqsysmctvyu6t3wmne7sdx8dca2g3c...
Luke Dashjr · 2w
The other restrictions prevent the same issue. OP_RETURN is not the only contiguous region that can be abused. There is no "different issue" addressed by RDTS. There's also no evidence an OP_RETURN-only variant would get more support, and someone even proposed that a while back and effectively prov...
ihsotas · 2w
The continuity of content is a meaningless distinction. The csam bludgeon is a classic tool of statecraft against freedom and encryption.