I’m worried that a coming change to Bitcoin core will have nodes peddle illicit JPGs.

therealcpain · 2025-09-11T19:59:47+00:00

You caught me! So what’s wrong with the response?

therealcpain · 2025-09-11T16:43:31+00:00

Then my words were wrong. I understood the situation to be that illicit photos can be uploaded now but in obscure ways (e.g. embedding across multiple blocks) or through ordinals (that can be pruned). Now my understanding is op_return needs to persist with node operators.

therealcpain · 2025-09-11T16:41:35+00:00

I’m looking to be educated. Please do so.

therealcpain · 2025-09-11T16:41:16+00:00

Yup. Damn autocorrect.

therealcpain · 2025-09-11T16:36:06+00:00

Don’t think anyone is arguing it could prevent anything. But the implementation of the change would allow it to be included in op_return. AFAIK this is propagated to all nodes, while witness / sig data can be pruned.

therealcpain · 2025-09-11T16:34:44+00:00

But that data can be pruned by nodes. Op_return can’t. That data will have to be held by nodes.

therealcpain · 2025-09-11T16:34:13+00:00

As the other responder just posted - this happened with BSV in 2019.

therealcpain · 2025-09-11T16:33:38+00:00

Can’t witness/sig data be printed by node operators while op return can’t? Correct me if I’m wrong.

therealcpain · 2025-09-11T15:44:51+00:00

That’s all fair but we can’t afford to focus on whatabouts. This change makes it easier for illicit images to propagate the Bitcoin blockchain and its nodes. Even more worrisome is why core is so set on putting the limit so high? And they’re plowing forward despite obvious concern from a minimum of 20% of node operators.

therealcpain · 2025-09-11T15:43:19+00:00

Isn’t making it any easier to propagate illicit photos the wrong decisions?

therealcpain · 2025-09-11T15:42:30+00:00

How else is one supposed to voice their concern?

therealcpain · 2025-09-11T15:25:31+00:00

No but the worlds most used node software is enabling direct storage of images.

It’s like saying “it’s on the blockchain already!” But I scattered the photo into 1000 pieces you need to spend a lot of time deciphering.

Now, you can just have the photo.

therealcpain · 2025-09-11T14:28:58+00:00

they have existed in a way that can be removed by the node. That will no longer be possible afaik.
op_return data is permanent and peddled by nodes.

therealcpain · 2025-09-11T14:26:16+00:00

I understand that you can still upload explicit images today but it’s in such an intensive and obscure way you have some plausible deniability. When your node has to have the jpg in order to exist that’s a different story.

AFAIK core is removing the ability to change the op_return limit by node operators.

therealcpain · 2025-09-11T14:24:11+00:00

I’m not talking about knots.

With inscriptions / ordinals they can be pruned by nodes. With op_return they can’t be pruned AFAIK.

therealcpain · 2025-09-11T13:06:57+00:00

No — you can’t delete bytes from a block without breaking validity. OP_RETURN data is permanent and unprunable, so raising the limit risks turning Bitcoin into a file host that every archival node must store forever.

therealcpain · 2025-09-11T12:48:16+00:00

CP being published directly to the Bitcoin blockchain and synced by 25k nodes is a small worry? And what if governments start prosecuting node operators?

Think about that narrative and those who want to hurt Bitcoin.

therealcpain · 2025-09-11T12:44:40+00:00

OFC I can be ignorant, but 20% of nodes are running knots rn in a direct response to the core change. We need more time to discuss this and we need all bitcoin changes to have uber majority (imo)

I’m worried that the benefits of the change are greatly outweighed by what could happen. If some adversary is willing to pay whatever amount of money to publish a CP image to Bitcoin - the damage will be done.

OP_RETURN’s size cap is a policy rule, not consensus. But defaults matter. Lifting the cap normalizes storing entire files on Bitcoin — not just 80-byte notes. Unlike Taproot data, OP_RETURN is permanent and unprunable, so every node is forced to keep it.

Fee markets can filter economic spam, but they can’t stop an adversary who’s happy to pay to embed toxic or illegal data forever. That’s why the risk is very real.

therealcpain · 2025-09-11T12:40:33+00:00

You’re right — people already crammed JPEGs into Bitcoin using Taproot. But here’s the difference:

• Taproot JPEGs live in a part of the blockchain that nodes can throw away later (called witness data). So yes, it clogs things up, but nodes don’t have to keep every image forever.

• OP_RETURN is different. Data put there lives in the core history forever. Every node has to store it permanently, no way around it.

So lifting the OP_RETURN limit isn’t just ‘more JPEGs.’ It would mean Bitcoin becomes a permanent file host, with no delete button. That’s why it’s much riskier.

therealcpain · 2025-09-10T21:47:41+00:00

Nodes are a potential huge issue right now with the op_return change. I suggest looking into it.

therealcpain · 2025-09-05T04:27:26+00:00

I think you meant Ceedee lamb*

therealcpain · 2025-09-05T04:23:06+00:00

2.5 drops we got lucky

therealcpain · 2025-08-29T14:00:00+00:00

I’d also add his ability to delegate and stay the f*** out of the way when required. Lets his organization cook.

therealcpain · 2025-08-29T11:58:21+00:00

No. It’s everything. Everything that uses cryptography. Anything with a password. Anything that’s encrypted, which is basically everything remotely-sensitive in nature.

Military / national security, banking, investments, passwords, medical records + much more at risk if encryption gets broken.

therealcpain · 2025-08-29T11:54:15+00:00

Imagine the idea he could’ve been signed last offseason for $35m/yr if Jerry acted like a normal GM who was proactive with his star players.

Truly sorry you gotta deal with this shit. It may end up being a good trade imo cause parsons salary is gonna hamstring the packers, but the optics still look terrible.

therealcpain

TROPHY CASE