Topic: Mixers to be banned - page 12. (Read 23006 times)

If that would be the case, then signet would be flooded by 51% attacks. But because blocks are signed, it is impossible to abuse that kind of network. Which means, if you have a good blacklist, and whitelist, then most of the traffic is ignored, and only some messages are included.

Also, note that at the beginning, there will be little or no traffic, and any tools for censoring content, will be introduced gradually, when network will grow. Because you may not remember those times, but it was possible in the past, to write posts on Bitcoin Forum (that was not yet called "bitcointalk", this name was formed later), without logging in. And it was disabled later, when Bitcoin became more popular. In the same way, decentralized forum can be formed: during the first days, it is unlikely to be flooded, if something is new and unpopular. It is more likely, that people will ask questions like "how to connect to decentralized forum?" or "how to sign a post?", in the same way, as they asked "how to unlock port 8333 on my router?".

Which post you are replying to?

Theymos wrote about this a while ago: something like the DefaultTrust system voting could work. But without some moderation and Merit requirement, DefaultTrust could be overrun by a 51% attack. So when it's fully decentralized, that may happen.

Bitcoin nodes don't show images, and the Bitcoin blockchain doesn't support images. Anyone can give an external meaning to data, but that meaning is irrelevant without using external software. And if you want to search for illegal images, there's probably easier ways than searching the Bitcoin blockchain.

They go after those who identify and share the blocks where this content is located, and teach how to access it.

With Ordinals, things can become a little different. Because access is easier and the quantity can also be much higher. That's why this issue of Ordinals is more than simply using the network freely.

Anyway... we're already doing a lot of offtopic.

It's because you can't easily access an illegal JPEG from pre-Ordinals days from the blockchain.

So I guess it's illegal to have a BTC full node... I wonder why the authorities have done nothing about it.

Link corrected.

Unfortunately, there are very bad people!!! 

Some people are just sick. P.S. The link is not working.

Unfortunately, there are already much worse things on the Bitcoin blockchain:
Child abuse imagery found within bitcoin's blockchain (The Guardian)

I don't even want to imagine what a lot of Ordinals that have been moving/registered have...

I don't know if it is, because it will not be exposed that easily, as long as Scanners are not widely deployed. But there were also some malware on the chain, some XSS attacks (because some web wallets and block explorers displayed blockchain data directly, so it was possible to attack them in that way).

In general, blockchain contains a lot of surprises. And if people want "decentralized" things, they usually don't think, that to reach it properly, they would need to send and receive a lot of data, which does not belong to them. This is one of the costs of decentralization. Instead of one central point of failure, each peer does the job of that centralized server, which means, each peer has to handle his own traffic, and also the traffic that is only passed to other peers, but never displayed.

Which means, if you want to hide your payments, you need a full node, which will send and receive transactions, made by other people. And the same is true in case of decentralized forum: you would need to send and receive posts, written by people you don't like, or don't care about (or a significant portion of the network would need to do so, because there should be enough full nodes, to handle all SPV clients).

And for many legal reasons, it is highly encouraged to encrypt data-related things. In case of payments, public keys and signature nonces are considered to be random (and they can be batched in the future, if too much data will be posted). But in case of cloud storage, encryption is a tool, to not be legally responsible for the content, that is passing through a given node.

Is there any visible (not encrypted or external link) pedo pr0n jpeg in the BTC blockchain?

If so, all BTC nodes are illegal by definition.

That's why I believe NFTs shouldn't exist in the first place (unless there's moderation, which could easily turn into censorship).

ps: Cost is not an issue if you're determined to destroy BTC.

That is insane.

Terrible news and terrible decision. Whoever is arguing in favor of it is effectively a government censorship and anti-privacy shill.

   Japan and South Korea have some good IT infrastructure. But as I said you then need a safe guy ie a Theymos Clone so to speak that could be trusted to run the mirror as it would be an equal to the original. I think the risk that theymos II turns rouge could be just as bad as the risk that the USA government shuts down Bitcointalk I.

 

1. It was harder, and more expensive in the past. Now, there is a ready-to-use tool, called Ordinals client, which will make that easier, than it was before.

2. It was done in the past. There were at least links, but in some cases, there were some encrypted images.

3. Rule 34, and Rule 35 applies here as well:


And of course, a fully-decentralized cloud storage, will also have it. But with sufficient moderation, and a good blacklist, and whitelist, it is something we can deal with. Take mailing list for example: it is moderated, so such things are not posted there, even if someone could send it.

How come nobody has uploaded pedo pr0n in the BTC blockchain as an NFT?

BTC has way too many enemies who would love to see it destroyed...

As far a minority of people who care about freedom of speech is concerned, I agree (and I think most here would). It seems that by far the majority of members (that were posting their opposition to the mixer ban) were motivated by the payments being made by them and had mixers paid less most other campaigns many of them would not have bothered complaining.

Of course, for that reason peer-level-moderation is needed. Which means that yes, some content can be removed, and even should be removed. And who should do that?

1. Your own node. If you notice something ban-worthy, then you remove it from your node.

2. Your trusted peers. And by "peers", I don't think about your direct P2P connections, here and now, but rather the list of public keys of some unknown posters, which historically were good moderators, and which you decided to trust to some extent, to not be exposed into some very bad content. If someone would post naked photos, it is enough for one moderator to see that, it doesn't have to be shared with every node, if you trust that moderator. And you can still download that by default, if you decide to do so, you just don't have to watch that by default.

Which also means, that some unwanted messages will be probably relayed, but not displayed, if you choose to not display it. In this way, nothing will be "banned" (unless you, as a P2P peer, decide to drop a particular message, but then others may choose to broadcast it anyway).

So, when it comes to "banning" and "censorship", it is a different matter in decentralized forums. Because there are different kinds of ban:

1. Display-level ban: just a regular moderation. You decide to not display it. Or one of the "peer-moderators" you picked, decided to do so. But the message is still broadcasted over the network.

2. Relay-level ban: moderation enforced only by your node. It is similar to not relaying transactions below 10 satoshis per virtual byte. Your node can decide to do so, but others can pick some different rules.

There are other possible bans, but those two are the most common, if the network is used as intended. Which means for example, that you don't reuse public keys, and you don't know, who posted which message (unless you know master public key of that person, but even then, you can never be sure).

Believe me, many people only care about the fact that mixer signature campaign was paying high sum of money compared to other campaigns and that's why they miss it and beg theymos to change his mind. If mixer campaigns weren't about to pay lots of money to participants, then there wouldn't be much discussion about banning them. There is only a minority of people who really care about the freedom of speech and genuine discussion.

---

Guys, in decentralization if you mean that no post will get removed and no topic or subject will get banned, then keep in mind that many people might also post some illegal and unwanted things. That will bring more problems.

I'm not giving any semantics, I'm just saying that what you want is not viable at the moment. I didn't discard any message, I just didn't mention something that I didn't consider relevant.





A forum like Bitcointalk is quite demanding in terms of resources. Unfortunately, the best servers for this purpose are in the USA or Europe. Therefore, it is difficult to try to find a mirror outside of these locations that is minimally viable to operate. And between Europe and the USA, perhaps the USA is still the one with the best guarantees.

This might be off-topic but the numbers being stated are quite shocking. I understand the geographic contributions that make the disparity possible but still,  when you reflect on the fact that they are being attributed to the supposed richest nation on earth you do ask why that is the case.

If city households have the fastest available internet because of fibre optics then surely rural communities should have been getting mobile 4g/5g connections from dongles or hotspots (or even Starlink at government subsidised reduced costs).